Very night, team meeting of town council. This is a regular meeting and we are on the air, if you will, and welcome to all the people listening from their homes or looking at their computers at the office. This evening we will have a lengthy discussion. There's, if you will, the consent agenda and at that time we will be appointing some of our community members to the Summa as Arts Advisory Committee, the FAB Financial Advisory Board, part time Advisory Board, Citizens Grant Review Board, liquor licensing authority, EAB, which is the Environmental Advisory Board, boards of appeals, examiners, and planning commission, and then the second reading of the ordinance, and this is, this is performed, if you will, and ordinance conducting an ordinance review in enacting all the ordinances of a permanent nature as prescribed by the home rule charter. John Dresser, we have questions, we'll direct them to him. Then we will be going into a public hearing. And this is when we will open the public hearing. So any of you who want to come on down to town council chambers, if you want to weigh in on the two issues, we'll be discussing tonight. The first one will be the second reading of the ordinance for the renovation of Gwynns High Alpine Restront. It's a remodel. And I hope many of you have seen the depiction up at Gwynns High Alpine Restaurant. It's a remodel and I hope many of you have seen the depiction up at Gwynns. And then the second issue will be the ordinance 02. And this is a Fannie Hill cabins minor PUD amendment for requested phasing only. So those are the two major discussion points tonight and then we will be moving into an interview perhaps or conversation about another application for planning commission. With that, I will ask you to read the local. Alissa Shankt, here. Bill Manson, here. Mayor Butler, here. Bob Circus, here. And Tom Good. Here. So thank you. Is there any one in the public who would like to come forward and spend some time talking with us this evening about public concerns or issues? How would have you? Anybody? Please come forward. Say your name. Please come forward, say your name. My name is Joe Flynn. My wife and I reside at Nightney, Carriage Way, the capital peak. And I'm aware that the board of capital peak in Hayden Lodge, Santa letter to the council. We've gots, oh yes. Excuse me, I'm down here. Is that one that I accepted last weekend to the public record? I'm not quite sure. I've only recently become aware of it. And I just wanted to, and I have recently read it. And I just wanted to lend my support to the items that were listed there, scaling. What is the date of the letter and who is it from because we have many? It was from the Hayden Lodge and Condominium and Capital Peak Condominium Board Chairman. Yes, OK. We do have that. We entered it into the public, correct? I believe there are six points mentioned in that, which deal with the equity and fairness associated with the original owners and their obligations to finance various issues in the town, and also regarding property rights and things of that nature. Excuse me. I'm sorry. First of all, I wanted to thank you, Madam Mayor and members of the Council and the staff for your diligence and patience in getting this base village to move forward as far as it's come. One of the concerns that I have, mostly my wife and I, as being plasit to people who sit right on the plasitude and view that are the view playing or sight lines that we might expect. When we originally purchased our unit a couple of four years ago, we received an packet on the original amended PUD, a great detail associated with elevations associated with each of the buildings. We understand now that there is in the, one of the 10 agreements associated with the, that need to be resolved, that there are now looking for variances of up to 10% or perhaps 10 to 14 feet variances in height of those buildings. I'm not so sure what all that means in terms of elevations, but I would ask the council to review the elevation issues associated with that and what that does to the view planes for the capital P. Can Hayden-Lodge owners who look out into that area. I know that the enclave has had such a process accomplished and I know that it would be very equitable and very useful for all of us to understand what elevations we can expect as we look out of our windows out into the plaza too. Again, I thank you for all your patience and diligence in moving all of this forward. And I hope you would bear in mind not only the letter that was dated January 4th, but also these considerations about site plan analysis. Thank you very much. Just a clarification, Joe. Is the site issue specific to building 7 and 8? I think it relates to all 7, 8 and even 4. Because of those- For building 5 or the limelight? Because of those. For building five or the limelight? Well, it's the limelight. It's the, I guess it's the new form out in building with the condos and the entire circle, things that encircle the plaza area, where 10 to 14 feet or 10% higher, not only will be a site, I'm not sure of the wording, but a view analysis issue, but would also relate to the enclosure that would encompass the plaza too and how it might turn it into a dungeon more than an open year beautiful theater environment. Thank you, Joe. Thank you. That was my question. Thank you very, very much for coming to see me. Thank you. Any other public comments? If not, let's move into the consent agenda. Do I have a motion for approval? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you very much. I do want to just briefly review the work session topics with my colleagues. I added a few things that we might want to consider. And that is way back, I don't remember when. September, October, Rose brought in the electronic signage. And I don't know if we want to get that scheduled on a work session and get that project moving forward. Is that part of is that part of the poster project or I don't think so. I'm drawing a blank on how we left that with you Madam Mayor but was there a call that was. You're going to bring it back. but was there a call? You were going to bring it back. I have to go back. I'm sure we can bring it back. I don't know we have any new information, but I think it was going to be a further discussion of how you want to move it forward. And we can certainly do that. Any of you guys remember that? I thought we talked about something about trying a sample and she was going to contact the company about seeing if we could get a sample up there. Let me check my notes and figure it out. I mean, I can go back and look at my notes, but that's all I remember. So you can see our memories. My recollection was it's dead on arrival. I think that was a quote from the mayor. Well, that was. But I think that's what we might want to do in terms of experiment. I probably said DOA. Well, that was. But I think that's what we might want to do in terms of the agreement. I can do that. I probably said DOA. Yeah. It was a timing issue with so much going on in base village. We didn't know if we wanted to tackle that as a major issue right now from a PR perspective. So let's take a look at the other one. And I sent a note out to my colleagues here. I sit on the raft abort and I don't know if our community really understands the impact of the grant. Have a new bridge. The traffic, particularly morning from 7, will be about 630 until 9. And then later in the afternoon from 430 to about 630. The carrying capacity of Midland is extended beyond its limits by over 20 to 25%. So I suggested to my colleagues we might want to see what that raft impact might look like, see the whole proposal. And see if we need to work with our employers in the entire community on how we might wanna just start time, end time, et cetera for some of our employers. I don't know what, if you guys are interested in that, but I see it as a potential euthetic. I see it, you know, maybe know everybody that lives up here doesn't understand the impact that you're talking about because people who have businesses and know where these people are coming from to start work every morning at eight o'clock or whatever time it impacts us all. It's going to be a big impact. And if you're stuck in it, let's just say you're going to Denver and you get out and not detour, then you're going to realize what this impact is and that's going to take you. It's a 20 mile an hour road and with all that traffic that has to get to I-70 it's going to be a mess. Yeah, it's called off. It's not a good situation for anyone and as we know the 27 street bridge is only a two-lane bridge. So I mean it's really going to compound a lot of traffic issues. Do we want to get that scheduled as a work session? I think that it makes sense to do that. And to, I mean, there has been some information in the newspaper recently. But I think we could, I think we could get into it in a little more detail about these different phases and which Which phase is going to affect us in what manner? Bill Eliso. Yeah, I thought that Well through the EOTC we did we did approve the funding additional bus service down there, which I think is going to be really helpful And I thought the studies were were done quite well which I think is going to be really helpful. And I thought the studies were done quite well. I think a lot of the traffic coming to this part of the villages or the center of the valley is not going to be as large as I originally anticipated. I didn't realize that there are fewer people coming from beyond Glenwood Springs that do work up here. But I think it's good to get that information out. I think one of the things with those studies, which was interesting at their aftermeeting, we didn't anticipate at that time the studies, the development of base village and all the construction guys coming out arrival and silt and what have you. And then the Aspen, if that moves forward in terms of the development of the base. I mean, so things are getting a little different. So I think it's wise and Steve's schedule degrees, we need to really look at this from a growing fork perspective, but each town getting up to speed with what the impact would be. And I would encourage our employers to participate in the conversation as well. Anyway, okay, we'll put that. Those were the two major items. And there was one other that I would suggest I think spring may be coming sooner or later. And that was the leaf yard waste collection policies. How to get that scheduled at some point. And what we're trying to do with that at your call is we've got a dollars in there to understand our trash pickup and make sure we charge in the correct rate. We're hoping to put that leaf analysis in with that trash so it would be later than it'll be ready for the fall. So a raining for for sure. But it's definitely on our list. OK. Report that. OK. Thank you very much. I just went back and looked at my signs from the little, my notes from electronic signs. They just gave us an overview. We didn't say anything at the end. Well, there's dollars in last year's budget to do with that weren't reallocated for this year. And so if we're going to get them up and going, it's going to take discussion and allocation of two dollars to make it happen. But it's basically just information. Let's bring it back and take a good look at it. Okay. Anything else? Anyone wants to discuss? No. I don't have any. Okay. We have a motion on the table in a second. I'll support say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Thank you very much. Oh, all in supports. But I did. Yes. Okay. Madam Mayor, could we have an ordinance on here? The ordinance number 10? I forgot, John's reminding me, we need to do a roll call vote. That's right. So if you could, Barb, I don't know, they perhaps you for that, but could you do a roll call vote, Barb? I can. And the ordinance is associated with an ordinance conducting an ordinance review and reenacting all ordinances of a permanent nature as prescribed by the home real charter. Okay. Alyssa Schenk. What about my voting guest? The consent agenda. I mean not asking you. I'm just asking. But normally for the consent agenda we do a group you vote together but an ordinance requires an individual vote for the record and because we have an ordinance on the consent agenda tonight we we're asking you to vote in. So should say yes or no? Yes. Yes. Phil Manson? Yes. Mayor Baller? Yes. Bob Circus? Yes. Tom Good. Yes. Okay, it passed unanimously. Okay, we move on to the next item which is a public hearing. And the furry first item is associated with Gwen's remodel and expansion. This is the second reading of the ordinance. This will require a majority and I'll see if there is any presentation and then we'll move into the ordinance. David Corbin for Aspen's King Company. We have no supplemental presentation to what we presented the last time before you and are here essentially just to answer any questions or respond to any additional information that staff may bring forward. We did have a conversation with staff since our last meeting, describing the addition of a condition, I think it's condition seven. It's been added to the resolution. As if you recall, there was a conversation in our first reading and that hearing about simplifying the accounting, if you will, that describes the square footage of commercial space on the mountain, talk to staff, and the intervening times since the last hearing. And we are prepared and we'll be back to simplify that on our next amendment of the Mountain PUD Guide, which from our perspective we would anticipate proposing to the town sometime this spring or early summer at the latest. We have summer activities that we've gotten through the Forest Service Master Planning process and would likewise propose amendments in all likelihood to the town and during that process we'd likewise go ahead and propose and come to the council with agreement on a simpler method of accounting for that square footage. And I was remiss. I need to open the public session, the public hearing. So I will do that now. Julie Ann was... No, we don't have anything further to add. I do have something I would like to ask as I look at the resolution, it's still trying to download here on my iPad. If I remember correctly last week, we were talking in about the lease, the term of the lease with when and George. And if I remember correctly that's five years. It's until yes 2020 yes. 2020 and what are your plans post 2020? Well as I said last time we don't have any specific plans one way or the other. So let me ask you this. And if ski co would be willing to condition the, well, I want to go back and make a few comments. We all talked about last week the importance of that restaurant. It's menu and it's selection in terms of options for our tourist and guest on the mountain. And it's a squizzet, what do you say, 30% of people eating on the mountain. It's a very substantial percentage, yeah. It's a large number of seats. And one of the things I've heard from the community this week and just from my own concern is I'd love to somehow keep it within when George have an option. After the five years, is there any way the ski co be willing to insert that as a condition that they would have a first rate of refusal to give up the restaurant? Quite simply, I don't think that's a land use question. I think that's an operational question. And no, I would not voluntarily agree to a condition associated with anything that would direct our operation in that regard. It's certainly not our intent to change George or Gwen's circumstances, but with respect to a land use question, I don't think that's pertinent. Then a question would be in terms of an agreement with Gwen and George about the sustainability of their private restaurant. I think that's a matter between ourselves and George and Gwen and their successors and interest. I don't think it's a matter for this body quite frankly. I hear where you're coming from. I'm just asking if there's a way we might be able to do that on behalf of the community as well as our tourist and guests to have that level of service in difference in selection on a restaurant. I understand your concern, but I think that's a private business matter. Mr. Dresser, is there any options that we might have? I can't, I mean, I knew that was going to be your answer. And I agree with his answer. I don't think that's the function of the town council. You're regularly and uses throughout the community not determined who engages in them. Maybe if there was a liquor license involved, then you under the statutes of the state you do have the right to do a background check and examine the bona fides of a liquor provider but not in the in the forum that we're in now. Well I was going to give it the college try because I was not like a college try. And I think that we all want to applaud the work that it's from the heart. It's not just. Oh, I understand. Yeah. And I've got no quarrel with you raising the subject. Yeah, I knew you. What? I mean, it's just, you know, ski co is a big monster, if you want. And I'll just put it that way. And it's just so unique. And I could see it getting done in five years. From now you go. See you later. We would not want, we as a community of one I'm hearing, we would hope that that would not be the direction to ski co would want to go. I'll put that on the public record. Understood. And both but else? Nothing. I've got some questions. I would tell you that Michigan lost Sunday as well. What? Michigan lost Sunday as well. Since you were given at the old college time. I knew that was going to come up. Well, my alma mater however won the bull game. There you go. We're even. Okay, Tom, go for it. Did I have some questions on the item number 15 on our ours page, 19 or page 76, talks about the energy conservation in regards to the insulation, the roof, the walls, higher performance windows, and it says mechanical equipment. What extra mechanical equipment. What extra mechanical equipment? Yes, just dust, tempering and makeup and that sort of thing. Yeah, so basically, this roof, Oh, yeah, Seth and Malowski would see group architects. There's a rooftop unit that is being added over the serverry area, which will temper make makeup air going into. And that make that tempered air, the tempered part of the makeup air is coming from what the existing boiler? The tempered air is coming, it's the natural air coming in, it's the makeup air. So, that's that, but you're not going to temper it? We're tempering it, yeah. Okay, but where is the tempering coming from? That I'm not totally sure. I'm assuming it's coming from the unit itself. It's quite a large unit that's going on. So it's going to be a gas unit? Yes. So it's going to be an independent unit. Just right now, you're putting 17, 1800 square foot additional space on that building. And I just happen to be in a calculation business when it comes to heat losses and stuff. I come out with just less than 100,000 BTUs needed. Where are the extra BTUs gonna come to heat this building? Well, I'm not quite sure when it comes to the mechanical system. That's why we have our consultants. But everything has been calculated out with them. Our engineers have that all figured out. I think one of the problems with the building today is indeed that that makeup here is not tempered. So when Georgian and Gwen have described us, when it's like the temporary haven't been there. You know, you're really sucking through a lot of cold air today and indeed that makes the building or contributes to the buildings existing inefficiencies because you're sucking in all of this untenable. I'm a little concerned that, you know, I know propane's a big issue for George on the mountain, you know, in regards to getting enough up there so they don't run out for the end of the season. They have to fill up beforehand. And there's obviously no natural gas up there. And the power source right now for heating the building is an electric boiler. So, you know, the KW's available can't be, it's got to be limited also. So I'm kind of curious and where, I'd like to see where the extra heat sources coming from. That I'm trying to protect the tenants right now is what I'm trying to do. And I spoke several weeks ago about this in regards to, I'd like to see the ski company get a little bit more lead with this in regard to the subjust the windows and the roofs that you list. That doesn't necessarily prove to me the energy conservation that we really need from the ski company on this building. If this is going to be, this, I mean, El Campus is a great building. You go by there on Saturday and Sunday and you guys get people out on a sunny day. You have people off the deck. It's a great place to socialize. And so is this restaurant right here. And with the new lift being in, a lot of these people are going to be inside on a cold day. And knowing being in the lower floor myself before with clients, you can't even feel the heat. It's a cold building on that lower floor on a cold day when everybody goes into warm up. Now meanwhile, we're adding an extra 1,800 square feet. It's going to, you got to make up the BTU's somewhere. And I'm not convinced the makeup air is going to do it Because the door is going to be wide open The makeup air is going to be for is it going to be for the hood You guys don't know that though. Do you make up air for the hood? Right, but for me while that door You're still going to have you still going to have that flow coming through. Well currently there's no heater in the vestibule now there will be in the new vestibules. And the heater being coming off again off the existing boiler right and that boiler right now is pretty well maxed out. Those heaters are electrical. Those heaters are electrical in the best deals. There will be an electric part. Well, this is a concern of mine. And the other question was the, I guess the building department will review some of the mechanical equipment, the new mechanical equipment that will be going in. We haven't seen any prints, of course, but I just kind of curious what the new mechanical equipment is going to be. Yeah, that all will be submitted for a permit. And one more quick question. I asked George earlier about this on the lower floor with the existing bathrooms are right now The that's going to be an egress like and I know we don't have a sprinkler system of fire protection I actually talked to John Mealy about this also and he said he was gonna look into it I figured no news as an egress Those people on that lower floor of something did happen, that's going to tie into the new exit on the back, is that correct? No, that the existing... How are they going to get out if their fire alarm goes off and people are in the lower bathrooms? There's an egress door there now. It remains the same. It does go out, but what the new stairs coming down the back. Doesn't affect it at all. Doesn't affect it. Yeah, not even. That was the question I had. Yeah. OK. Just want to make sure we have a way out for anybody in that lower floor. Yeah. The lower floor remains the same. And then the egress there that's being added actually is just the upper level and the server. Thank you. Any questions? Yeah. Any questions down here? I'm going to ask you, Tom. Did you want to suggest deferring the approval until you had the answers to your question or are you prepared to move forward with the resolution? I'm prepared to move forward. I think I don't know how to with the reading. I'd like to make sure that I'm concerned about the heating. You know, they're, they're, we'll see what you'll see with Julian. Julian or Jim, I think John pointed out earlier, John Dresser pointed out earlier. I mean, this is the land use. And so what you guys are reviewing is you know, setbacks, building, appearance, those things and then you've adopted codes previously, the green building code and then assuming there's some level of approval tonight when the plans come in for the mechanical what our staff does is review them and ensure that it fits those codes and that's that's the leverage that we've got to compare against. But the staff the staff doesn't review heat losses. I mean, if I'm doing a building and I've taken out a mechanical plumbing permit, nowhere along the line has someone questioned any of my BTU losses or heat losses at all. So I'm a little concerned that we don't overlook, I mean, again, this is a beautiful building. I'm a little concerned that we don't overlook, I mean, again, this is a beautiful building. I think this is a great place already, and we're making it better. I don't wanna see things fall short on a cold day that people don't come. My gosh, I was up in that restaurant. We couldn't possibly warm up. And when people go in on a cold day, that's what they want to do. Obviously they want to warm up. So I don't know, is that something that, Julianna, who's going to make sure the mechanical, it's not going to be Mark Kindle? Because Mark doesn't have time for heat losses or check heat losses, or the BTU loads of the building? That's what we rely on the applicant and their staff. I think that was to John's point earlier that this is their project and we rely on them to develop and design their project. We compare that against the law and I know what John's looking right there is to make sure there's not some code provision in the law that allows us to do that. And what we do have the ability to check against is the Green Building Code. And if that meets that, that's the check box that we get, that's the authority we have. And I'm not trying to stop your discussion in simply, you need to be aware of this. Snowmass has adopted the 2015 Energy Code. And I have a book, and I didn't have the chance to look at, it's not going to talk about the BTU loads of building or the heat losses of building. I already know that. I know certain counties and municipalities, for instance in the E.L. County, they want to see a heat loss before a mechanical permit is issued. They have to see a heat loss. Now, this being an arena, if this was a brand new building, you'd probably have to produce a heat loss, I would assume. Since this is an addition, I'm not so sure it's required by our municipality. And for me, I think it's a pretty big issue. Because all the years I've skied here with different clients, and gone to warm up, it's been a cold, George, you know what I'm talking about. And I've seen you go around trying to get those dampers open and try to get heat for people. It's a cold building. And by tempering the makeup bear is not necessarily just the answer because that's just the hood. The makeup bear is not necessarily just the answer because that's just a hood. The makeup bear is a hood. Well, I can't really speak to the exact calculations on the mechanical. That's why we have our consultants. But I can't tell you that the main roof, that big pyramid roof right now is an R20. We're making it an R42. All the new roofs will be R42 all the exterior walls the existing is serious walls are R19 We're making those an R21 We're actually we are increasing the R value on the main flat roof as well It's taperts of some of that changes depending on where you're at all in all the building envelope is gonna be and New windows as well. So the building envelope is gonna be infinitely better than what it is today. So the heat loss should be substantially less than what you have now, as far as the building envelope goes. Yeah, I understand all that. You know, and again, I like what I see, but I'm looking a little deeper obviously, because I've had firsthand experience and fortunately or unfortunately to be in the crawl space up there and working on the building and getting the heat up just as I said weeks ago, I've seen George just like that Christmas story movie down here with the hammer banging on an electric boil trying to get the darn thing going and I just I just think there's got to be a little bit more to protect to protect us I don't know not the only thing that doesn't sound as if there's any protection yeah other than our process that we have an account for building. Well this is a special review of an application in a code in our design standards provides for an energy conservation plan and how that shall be promoted, etc. I don't have the application in front of me but in this ordinance you are making a finding that the applicant will comply a building permit with the applicable building code. And the language of the Energy Conservation Plan is just a little different. It says, Energy Conservation shall be promoted in maximum and managed taking of solar and alternative energy source opportunities to achieve this purpose applications for some division plan unit development or special review. She'll contain an energy conservation plan which will optimize the planning and utilization of all possibly all possible energy conservation features and propose new construction without reducing the percentage of authorized building lot area or density of love. So as Tom points out, this is a remodel and it's not new construction. Yep. And you're probably, at this point, probably at this point, going to have to rely on your green building code. And it would be much better if it was different, but it's not a new building. There's not, I guess I'm going to use the word RetroFid. If that's wrong, I guess I'd ask David Corbin to tell me it's It's something less or more than that, but I think that's that's where you are Okay, thank you from from our perspective I Guess reiterate what Seth just described You know indeed we're looking at utilizing the existing boiler, but we think the improvements to the building envelope are very significant. Maybe they don't sound that significant when they're described, but when you more than double the R value and the roofs and the walls and you stop the leaks and all the glazing systems and you provide new entries. You've actually gone quite a long way in providing an environment that you can more easily and readily temper. And we think that that envelope and the improvements to the envelope are the most important parts of that improvement. Certainly, anything that we submit to the building department will take into account the new codes that have to be met in all of the standards that are set forth in those codes. You'll see stamps or you won't, perhaps, but Mark Kittle will see stamp sets of drawings for mechanical engineers who indeed are saying that they're submitting those plans to meet those codes and your own building department will assess whether or not those codes have been met And we think those standards are actually pretty stringent and those will be met. Otherwise, we won't get our building permit. So I Understand and respect you David. You're in your correct the You know building at this source. You'll you'll have it. You'll have a stamp, mechanical set of plants and building apartments. We'll look at them and they'll, it's just as I said earlier, this is a remodel and retrofit as John said is correct. That's the correct classification for this. And that being said, that building has been added on with the existing boiler through the years and the existing boiler is the existing boiler and George, you know talking about that it's it's been I know it's been undersized for for a long time You just looked out certain days that you had people comfortable you have a closed environment in Gwen's restaurant. Otherwise, that place would be really cold with the makeup air happening. Anyway, I'm going to let this slide here, Madam Mayor. Move forward, but I think we need to make a note that the building department needs to make sure everything is mechanically in order if there's some way of putting that into words. Clint, I don't know if there's... I'm sure they'll follow up on it right and they will yes okay do I have a motion to approval of Ordinance number one series of 2016 a motion to approve thank you Alyssa do I have a second second do I have any further questions and do I have any comments from the public? Okay. If I have no further questions, this will be a roll call. A roll call, please, Barb, in terms of approval for it's number one, which is the special review of Gwen's high-alpine restaurant remodel and expansion. So okay, Elizabeth Shank. Yes. Bill Manson. Yes. Mayor Butler. Yes, Bob Circus. Yes. Tom Good. Yes. Okay, it passes unanimously. So congratulations to all. Forward to seeing some work in April, is that correct? Wonderful. We'll get it there up with a clean road in April, but as soon as we can, yes. What was the construction? How long? How many months? We're presently anticipating that we be probably mobilized and constructing from June 1 with Thanksgiving. So the contracts and all the stuff have been ordered, and you're good to go? Oh, well, we haven't bought the job yet. No, I needed approval here first. Oh, come on. Sorry. We'll be moving quite quickly from now on. OK. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. And thank you. Thank you, everyone, for being here. and those of you who have participated in your input Into this renovation and to our planning commission. They did a marvelous job as well So and town staff great job a lot of work on your platter these days. Okay. We're gonna move into the second item Madam Mayor you want to close the public hearing? Will we have public hearing for the next one too? Well, it's not the same public hearing. Oh, okay, so we'll close the public hearing on Gwen's by Alpine. Thank you. Thank you very much, John. We're not accustomed to having two items on public agenda these days. Okay, number two is Fannie Hill Town Homes and let's all get our notes and let's see if I get my computer bill. Okay, this is a public hearing. It's the first reading of ordinance number two series of 2016 Fannie Hill cabins minor PUD amendment regarding a proposed phase change. I'm going to have Julie Ann to open for Jim. Hello, Jim. Thank you. Madam Mayor, thank you. This is a proposal for Madam Mayor. Would you please open the public? Oh, yeah, we have to do that again. Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Sorry, Eric and we'll get going. Julie and Jim. Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is a proposal for a minor PUD and involving the Fannie Hill cabins PUD and just for the record, this does like you mentioned, require a public hearing and the public hearing notice was published in that December 30th issue of the SNMS Sun and the applicant did submit signed affidavits for the mail-in and posting of the hearing notice. This particular proposal, the applicant initially submitted back in October was presented more as a comprehensive design amendment to the project, but then the applicant resumitted on December 18th to just propose a phasing text change only. And it's more or less involving a timing or phasing change for the project. Initially, the Fannie Hill cabins wasn't allowed to issue, Initially, the Fannievale cabins wasn't allowed to issue, or be issued the building permits until phase 2b of base billage was completed. That was former phase 2b, former phase 2b was lot 2, which involved buildings 9ABC, buildings 4A, B and 5 in base village. And now the applicant wishes to change that and say that no building permit will be issued until building five on the base village site would be completed. So we reviewed the application and we've kind of addressed about a half dozen core issues that the council may wish to discuss. And those include the relationship of this particular project to base village because this was one of three projects at the time proposed back in 2004. Fannie Hill, Cabin, St. Clair Meadows and base village were all presented as one preliminary plan application back in 2004. But then it was understood that they'd be broken out into separate final PUDs later. Also the vested rights for this particular project has expired back in November 2014, so they can extend the previous employee housing requirements from 2004 to now. They have to demonstrate compliance with the 60% mitigation rate. And then there's also impacts related to the possible granting of this particular time meter phase in change for Fannie Hill cabins. There's also construction management and staging planning issues, as well as the timing and completion of the associated agreements, the replat, and a possible future PDMM that the applicant alluded to in their application materials. Those agreements were never completed along with the replat for this particular project. To give you a short story, I don't know if all the planning commission members were here back in 2011 on council or they may have been on another board or the planning commission board, but this is not the first request for the ph favor of that particular request because there was concerns about a mix of the commercial and unit numbers within base village and we thought the residential and base village should come first prior to the cabins being constructed the applicant proposed it as a standalone request mainly for reasons of economic development activity, but staff recommended against the proposal and when it was carried forward to planning commission, planning commission also recommended against it and when it rolled to council, council had similar concerns and wanted to know the status of the base village project and ongoing work with that project, but base village was struggling at the time it came out of foreclosure right after the recession and so forth. So when it was before the planning commission that the applicant requested several continuances over about over about a two year period of time. And for the same reasons of knowing what's going on with base village. So in 2013, there was a building 13 B amendment proposed. That was proposed along with some brush creek utility upgrades at the time. That was in May 2013. Later that year, fall 2013, the ski co-applicant submitted a lot to the limelight proposal. That was a standalone request as well. And when it was presented, the planning commission, not the co-applicant, but the base village developer at the time proposed a phasing change in their presentation, swapping faces 1b, 2b. And based on that information, the town determined that that request would require a major PVD amendment. So in 2014, the applicant submitted a major PVD amendment or minor PUDM emin, evolving an updated development agreement. If you remember that, that included all the milestones related to that agreement. And then that resulted in the major PUDM eminem being submitted in 2015 that we just got through with in December 21st, along with another development agreement that was consistent with that moment. So that kind of led full circle back to this Fannie Hill cabins proposal and that's why it's before you tonight and staff recommends approval. We think it's a reasonable request because now there appears certainty that all these buildings on lots two and three in base village are going to be completed by November 2018. But we do have some recommended conditions and when this was presented before the planning commission, planning commission had some changes to the recommended conditions and in fact had some additional language to a to assure That building five would would come first before the Fannie Hill Kevin's project So with that I like to I guess introduce the applicant Brooks Don Schuster and Johnny surface with the Aspen scheme company evening with the Aspen scheme company. Good evening. Good evening. As Jim had talked about, there is some ties to this to base village, obviously, even though the original application for base village was considered up through preliminary with both St. Clair Meadows and Fannie Hill. And then it was separated since it's a separate and distinct PUD as the Wood Road P it's a separate and distinct PUD as the Wood Road PUD as opposed to base village PUD to do that. And we agree, obviously with staff, the vested rights have expired to this. The underlying approvals for the project remain in place. I think John can confirm that, but we need to now comply with current code and reference to employee housing mitigation and other aspects of the town codes that may have changed since 2004 with this as it comes forward. The difference, I think, in what we're asking at this point compared to where we were in 2011 as when we came forward in 2011. There was total uncertainty on base village that it wouldn't move forward. And we asked to try to delink it entirely from base village. And after three extensions I said let's just let the vested rights expire. And with through our application at that period of time to try to move this forward because there didn't look like there was any certainty to this point. At this time, this application is requesting the ability to commence Fannie Hill townhomes, only after commencement of Building 5 and lot 2, after commencement of Building 5 and Lot 2, commences as determined by town staff, and as defined, I think in the development agreement that John's laid out specifically in reference to base village on what commencement of construction means in reference to that. Moving forward, so our intention is to move forward to that. I'll point out, because one of the things that Jim just talked about was phase two B of base village originally had you know lots a lot to for buildings four five and nine at that period of time. But that was phase two B of base village you know two A at that time was the vice-roy hotel. There was a phase 1B and phase 1B at the time of the original approval was actually lot three, which is building 6, 7, and 8. Based upon the timelines that are currently in the base village approval process, building 6, 7, and 8, as well as 4, 5, need to be completed at the same time. And the other component of that is that timeline also talks about upper wood road improvements being finished at the same time. So originally the condition required that Fannie Hill town homes couldn't start until phase two B was completed. If phase 2b is completed and an upper wood road is completed and I can't start construction on Fannie Hill townhomes until such time, that means I'm probably tearing up upper wood road again. So this allows us to complete the major excavation and concrete work and some of those kinds of things, you know, prior to the upper wood road improvements to being happy happening from that. So the next question you'll probably ask is, where are we since it happened at the base village process, just to let you know. And I've said all along that even in our 2014 application And I've said all along that even in our 2014 application that in order to make economic sense for the limelight, the Snowmass Mountain Club and the Fannie Hill townhomes were both key components from an economic standpoint to make base village and the potential limelight hotel to work. This is one of the hurdles that we had talked about and my Kaplan had mentioned that we still need to get over in order for us to close on base village as part of our Pritchison sale agreement. Just to let you know our Pritchison sale agreement has outside date has been extended. One of the conditions of that is to extend that is to get through this at hurdle as well as several other that we talked about including the plaza agreement which we're having conversations directly with town staff on back and forth so things are moving forward with that. One of the other components of that is the approval of the subterranean or the garage condominium association which drafts have been submitted for that. So we are moving forward to get through those hurdles. We still are not certain that we can get through all of these hurdles and moving forward. But we are moving forward at checking these off one by one to get close to the finish line with that. So. Well done. You know, there's this notion called false sense of urgency. And I tell you what was very disappointing because it's really rubbed me the wrong way since the December 21st meeting. And that is that my colleagues and I were scolded for not moving the process that we really delayed the entire approval of base village. And it really resonated and is really, really difficult. That was the most difficult scolding that I've ever encountered after everyone on this council were working every week from April all the way to December to meet the timeline that you and related put forth. And that's golden wasn't helpful. Understand that. And then the second part of that was there were five major hurdles. I need to we have we ask what are the five major hurdles or six major hurdles? And they just come one at a time. And I think it's very important for us to understand what the transparency is very important to me and to everyone on this council. What are the major hurdles to get through this? We hit the December 21, and the issue there was to get the whole thing under contract, and then it was a condimentedization of the garage was going to be done, and my understanding is our town attorney still has not received that document. And now we have all these development agreements, not only development agreements, there's 10 agreements to be done by March 31st. I don't know where we are with those and I so the question for me when I read this was isn't it too early? Should we not hold this until after we know the other 10 agreements are approved? I don't understand the logic, so I would be helped there. It's not that I'm trying to make or we're trying to make ski co-adabors, ski co-s supposed to be one of our partners. You know, I need some help here. I understand that, but it's also extremely frustrating from our perspective of what's gone on. And if you remember right, the original aspect of that base village approval process, as it was anticipated, was that the application was going to be approved by the end of May last year. Then it got moved from the end of May to sometime in September. And then finally got moved again into December. And it was summer of last year where I indicated to your staff that there were issues with this moving forward for us from a timing perspective and from our ability to close on this from cost escalations and other components of base village that we were looking at at that point. I have no idea whether staff conveyed any of that to any members of council or not, but those concerns were conveyed early on last summer because of the length of time that this was taken for us to get to the point where we were in 1231. Well, I still remember I thought we had approved limelight moving forward if my memory serves me well. And ski co chose not to move that project forward because they didn't know what what their who their neighbor was going to be. That limelight was never moved forward. I go back to February of 14 and let me just say this the limelight should be open now. We should have completed construction and should have been open. There was a decision made by the town in February of 2014 that indicated that there needed to be a more lengthy process to do vested rights extension and phasing changes than was anticipated. We decided at that period of time that this was going to take longer than we expected. We at that time had a, I actually asked Mr. Circus, I think at that time, not to approve a planning commission recommendation to move limelight forward to town council at that period of time. We were at that point, almost identical to the date we are today, had already committed to construction or steel shop drawings for the property. We were negotiating final contract for that and as soon as we were as I have town council approval and we anticipated in April of 14 we were ready to execute that contract and start construction at that point. If we were to start a construction in this spring of 2014 the line might would be open today. But because of the decision that was going to push this process out in February 14 in the uncertainty that any base village was going to get built at all past that period of time, we decided to pull that application because of that uncertainty, you know, from a capital risk, from a marketing risk, to be able to move forward. So well, two times. Would you remind me what the decision was that would have dragged out the process because you're correct. I was the chair of the planning commission at that time and we had gone through the planning commission process and we were ready to draft a resolution and send it to council. It was actually a drafted resolution. It was a draft to vote on. That's right. To that point, there were two separate applications pending. It was not the limelight application, a lot two application that was moving along swimmingly. The requested modifications in the PUD, the balance of the base, base, base village PUD is what was determined to be a major amendment and I think that's what Donna's referring to. That was the application submitted by Snowmass Acquisition Company, Coeur and Hathi Espin Scheme Company. And it was our understanding, staff's understanding at the time that in fact the applicant in the base village Snowmass Acquisition would not allow the ski company application to go forward at a much more rapid pace. In other words, yes, Don's correct. The ski company application was on track for approval in spring of 2014. That was not going to be achievable by the SNOMAS acquisition application and the applicant in the base village that SNOMAS acquisition to my understanding. I don't know what agreement they made, but both were withdrawn simultaneously. And to somehow imply here that the town council is responsible for the delay in the limelight application is at best misleading because they were separate applications. And in theory not tied to each other other than their purchase and sale agreement and whatever other agreements the two different applicants had. So to say that it would be completed in 2016, that was still within their realm to go forward with. Now, there's a key element to that application. That application required the consent of the property owner, which was Snowmass acquisition, which was provided in our application. And was it continued or was it revoked or was it a sole decision of the Aspen's Kean Company to withdraw the application at that point? It was a decision in the Aspen's Kean Company at that period of time because they at that point I think the direction that town council and that applicant were looking at was trying to get through the review process on the entire base village by May 31st of 2014, which didn't happen. when that application was deemed major, actually, you know, it was the appeal of that application that was denied as a minor PUD amendment by town council in 2014. That's correct. That's correct. So to go back to your question, Madam Mayor, this is something that is very upfront from us from a perspective that we need to have this to continue to move forward. I mean, if this is not, if this is not going to happen, we need to know sooner than later. If it's, if you're not going to improve this because that will have a direct impact on whether we move forward on the other aspect of the contracts. Well, down the question is one of, it's not that we're against or I'm against what you've got here. It's, why do we need to do this today versus once all the agreements are completed by March 31st and this and bring this back? As you have mentioned, there's many different components of this. We have to check these off one at a time in order to get through this process. If in fact, this gets approved, that's one of the components of this. Just to let you know, and what we've sent in this application, to get the phasing change for this is all we're asking at this period of time. We are not going to build what was approved in 2004. There were log cabins in the woods. You know, as Jim had mentioned, we had actually suggested coming forward with an October with a PUD application tied to this that had some revision to the architecture. We determined through October, November that we really weren't excited about that architecture. We've actually visited with a lot of the real state firms in town here who suggested that we look at a redesign of this facility. So one of the components of Fannie Hill townhomes to move forward is we will be coming forward with another PUDMM to be determined whether or a major which changes the architecture and design of that building, not necessarily the mass scale or buildings, not mass scale or anything in reference to that, and bring that forward, just bring to move forward. But just to know that we've got the ability to at least build what was approved in 2004 is one of the critical components. Just the phasing. Which is what this is the phasing. Just the phasing, you're gonna see fanheel townhomes again. And we're willing to take the risk of what we're going to redesign is something both planning commission and town councils and staff will be supportive of us sometime in the future. Well, so I've got one more question. I'll have to cancel. Okay, what are the six hurdles, the five or six hurdles? So firstly it was... We talked about this as one. Okay. Obviously getting past 1221, was a major hurdle, component of that. The subterranean garage component was part of this. And... Where are we with that? I have reviewed a draft with that. The subterranean garage component was part of this. And- Where are we with that? I have reviewed a draft with that that has been provided by related in their attorneys. We're reviewing that on Friday and hopefully that will go to the town for their review to come forward. And the development agreement. And how close are we on that? and the development agreement. And how close are we on that? That's keeping all 10 agreements. And play. So we're going to, when they're all ready to go, we'll execute them all at one time. Are we 50, 40, 30? We reviewed it. We expect to get that draft back. The majority of those agreements by the end of this week or early next week. Remain me. Ready this week? We intend to get that draft back of the majority of those agreements by the end of this week or early next week. Miami. Just ready this week. We intend to get our draft red lines back to the applicant by the end of this week. And then they would have to March 18th to resume. That assumes they're correct. That assumes their correct. Wait, they March 18 is 90 days from the ordinance approval. Okay, so Unless they accept every red line and say we're ready to go they had To meet that deadline they'll need to recent that Prior to that. It's a little bit non-probably I think what else I think understands that I'm not sure if I can get a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit met with them several times on the agreements. We're waiting for the draft to come back to us. The intent is to turn those back hopefully within two weeks. We're definitely not going to wait until March 18th. The goal is try to get everything wrapped up in final prior to the beginning of March. How much confidence do I have? Should I have? Because I don't hear? We're almost to the finish line I think that you should have some good level of confidence We've been working with staff over the last couple weeks and I think that we have you know worked solely on the Plaza agreement together the other agreements have been not so much sitting in a room and working through them, but the plaza agreement is the key agreement. And I think that we are getting there, and we are going to turn a draft of that back to staff, but from the meeting we had, we had some level of understanding. I think we're able to try and move forward with that. And that's probably one of the most complicated of the agreements, that's a trip party agreement The others I don't think were that far apart in terms of kind of where we were when we submitted It's more just cleaning things up making sure all the exhibits are there and making sure everything is accurate So I want to go back the agreements are Thank you Craig of course The hurdles worked in number six No number five. I've got Fannie Hill the, the 1221, the subterranean agreement, the development agreement, what else? The remainder of the other restricted housing agreement that's all of the agreements that are in front of the town and applicant to resolve our components of that. And we have a couple other business related items that are part of the contract. Do those business related items require town council approval? No. Are those matters between the town and the brush creek land company. Related in ski co. Related in ski co. There are so many names of flowing around over the years. Okay. Is there any questions from town council? Yeah. Done. You originally in October, you presented to the planning department a more comprehensive amendment than just phasing. What was in that that is not part of the phasing? There were, as I just mentioned, there was a redesign of some of the exterior to make it more contemporary and a change in the roof lines to do that to actually the original fan-heal cabins were pretty extreme from the amount of roof and roof forms that were there and it was a simplification of those. And anyway, like I said, we had had some subsequent conversations with those in the real estate community that will sell these items. And there was made some suggestions that we further modify those elevations and or design of this project to make it more marketable. And so rather than wasting planning commission and town council period of time at that point and then come back with another application wasting more time. We decided to just modify this to phasing at this point and take the risk that whatever we present in a future time is going to be acceptable to staff, applying commission and town council. What's the expiration date of your current agreement? I'm not at liberty to disclose that because of a confidentiality agreement. It's really, I'm going to tell you it's very hard to do this. In my, from where I'm sitting, I, well, let me say this a different way. Both Don, you and Jim, use the term certainty to describe where we are and why the council should approve this phasing. Frankly, I see nothing certain about where we are. I don't think that the ski company has committed to doing anything else than negotiating with the developer related. I don't think related is committed. I don't think related is committed. I think that related by their actions recently in having a contract to sell the SNOMAS center, marketing the mall and And jettising any number of potential buyers of the property have any interest in building anything else in base village. So from my seat, we have to look at this as if it could be any developer at any time and the developer is nameless, until we see a certainty in terms of action that somebody is gonna step up and build here. So I don't see any certainty. I also don't think that there's much change in the circumstances that Jim described from 2011 to today. The major change and pretty much the only change, in my opinion, is that we now have an updated PUD agreement that provides entitlements to anybody who wants to be a builder in this town. It could be SkiCo, it could be related, but so far neither of you have convinced me that there's any certainty that you will build here. So that being said, my opinion, I can't see any purpose in breaking up piecemeal, different parts of this PUD that relates to the Fannie Hill. Not that I wouldn't be, not that I wouldn't give it consideration if it's all together, but I frankly think it should be all together. You state that there is a time crunch from your perspective. I recognize that. But yet you won't tell us, you won't share with us what that time crunch is. So my feeling again is that you just got to go and put your, put your, do your design work like everybody else when they put a PUD in here. We don't, we don't and we haven't, until December 21st. In my experience, we have never approved a PUD and then said we've got 90 days to finish it and fix it. We've always finished it and fixed it before we approved it. And you're asking us to do the same thing again. You're asking us to approve a phasing change without having any idea what the buildings are going to look like, what any other requirements, land use requirements would be involved. And I just, I think it would be a very poor decision for this council and for this town to do that at this time. With all due respect, all we're asking for is the ability to build the buildings that were approved in 2004. And as the condition that was written into this ordinance that was passed by planning commission, the commencement of that construction cannot start until commencement of a construction of a limelight branded hotel as building five commences. So this can't move forward unless all I'm like is under construction. That's a condition. Yes, I recognize that, but we don't know what it's going to look like. And we ought to know what it's going to look like. This community deserves to know what it's going to look like. You will have that process during the land use process to see the update if it doesn't, if you want to see what it's going to look like, it was approved in 2004, and it'll look like that if it doesn't get approved. Well, I'm not suggesting that your new design won't get approved. I'm not even suggesting I wouldn't be in favor of improving it, but I would like to see it first. You will have that opportunity to see it. I don't think I have any other questions. I'm going to be on the vice to go into executive section. Did you want to ask about that? I do. This is just a simple question. You know, on the plat map on page 22 or page 24, I believe you have that labeled wrong. They show the vice-roy. Is that not the Cresswood right there off of Woodrode? Now that was my fault. I took that off an old GIS. Yeah, I just want to make sure I see that. You know, and spot it. OK. I mean, I say that's a simple question, simple text error. And the other question is when This was approved The Fannie Hill cabins originally was it 2004 I mean, maybe this is Jim So everybody who owns at the wood run place and Crestford The zoning was obviously there that they knew something was going to be there. So the letters we receive, not in favor of, are from basically people who are going to have their nice view of Fannie Hill, their entertainment in the afternoon disturbed. And I understand that, but I just wanted to confirm that that area which is off to the right off of the old ski company building there and I know you don't have a picture of how many town homes are there, Don? There's five buildings there, ten units total, and an affordable housing caretaker unit that's on site with that. And this robber's here from, you know, Crestwood, we've had a conversation this week about what our intentions would be to come back and that they'd have the opportunity to participate in the public planning process as we move forward with this, but it's our hope that we're actually going to reduce scale of these buildings from what was originally approved from a roof line perspective. So on that roof line, I think that's building D, whatever it is over at the Crestwood, they're going to look right at the town homes, correct? That's correct. So I think that's building D, I'm not sure. I think it's building D. I'm not sure. I think it's building D. I worked at the Crescent 1973. I remember still a little bit. Well, we went through all of this when everything was approved. Right. I guess the question is, there was the other part of the question was the confirmed that somewhere along some of the packets that I read, all the parking's going to be in-house for them. That's correct. There's underground parking that's access to the Wood Road. The ski back trail goes over the parking entrance so that the ski and ski out access for Wood Run place is preserved out of this. And also a ski location at the bottom right hand corner what you're looking at there at Wood Road where Chris Wood can ski down to and also ski access to Fanny Hill on that little finger that's on the corner of the you horseshoe on Wood Road there. One one final question approximately I know this is still in planning What's we take the square footage the basic square footage of the free market units are going to be They were approved at roughly 2,400 square feet per since about 10 units about 24th. I think it's 24,500 total roughly We're not asking for any dimensional changes at all. So it's still within the same footprint, and you may scale it down as what I hear. That's all I have, thank you. Okay, other questions? So done in addition to the phasing change, the other change would be to the employee housing mitigation. Yes. And I heard you say that there'll be a caretaker unit on site. Yes. Do you also plan on using some of the estimate scheme companies' credits to offset employee housing? Potentially one of the things that could come into play when we resubmit this is to alter that affordable housing on site to include an additional one bedroom that potentially take care of that at the same time. We think with the potential changes in if we can bring the mass of this building down, we might be able to actually put more affordable housing on site and build it rather than use credits. That would be a goal. be a goal. So, Don, I'm still struggling with the question and perhaps you answered it inadvertently without answering it. And that, I'm going to call you on you in a minute, Robert. I apologize for not recognizing these two seconds here. So the question is, why do we have to do this now versus after March 31st? And somehow within your statements of the six, there seems to be an implication of a timeline with getting the contract done. You don't have to answer that. I'm just looking at your face of non-verbals. Yeah. Okay. Robert. Robert Sinko, general manager of the Crestwood. The reason I rose my hand is because I wanted to respond to Tom. He mentioned that error in the map and I think it's actually significant. Because when you look at the map, it's on 124 of your packet. It shows the Crestwood as the vice-roy and I think some people who got this notice, potentially did see this notice, thought, oh, well, this isn't going to affect us. So they're not writing emails, they're not writing letters, et cetera. And they're not here today to mention that. So I just wanted to make that point. And I did talk to Don about this and we had some discussion years ago with when this was first approved about our ski access from that corner. And when Don talks about redesign, that's a key issue for us. And it goes along with what Bob was saying. We'd like to see it. Like to see it before you as a town council or any what a hearing the town makes a decision whether or not that they think this works. We recognize that it was approved. We didn't really care for that approval. We didn't care for what was being built there. There were a lot of very difficult discussions during that time, but yeah, we know it was approved. We want to make sure that we have this chance now to re-look at the ski access in and out of that location. There's a pathway that goes from that corner to the mall that's been there for 40 years. That's another access point. People still like to ride their bikes to and from in the summer time and walk up there in the winter time. So that's another issue that's important to us. So the redesign is very important to us. And the question I have really is substantial completion of the limelight versus breaking ground or beginning construction, which is what you're really figuring out here today to approve those two time frames. The change in that time frame is that a year, is it a year and a half? Is it significant? I don't think it is that significant if it's a year and a half. As a matter of fact, they're building the line light, they're planning on building a line light. As part of that, they are building some condominiums. You know, they're going to have condominiums to sell. And when Don talks about the economic impact, these have condominiums to sell, or sedempty and not be sold, like many are today, as part of that. So, you know, there's a lot of work to be done yet and I think as Bob pointed out and we agree with that. So, it's it for now. So other questions? Yeah, Alyssa? I had a question. So Dawn, you said that one of the issues was Wood Road and it being repaired and then tearing it up again once you start building those townhomes. But what about the rest of the buildings that aren't in this next phase? Like what about 10 and all of those? Like, doesn't that tear up the road? It has the potential that 10 and 11, 12 would be also tied specifically to a construction management plan that would have to be approved. The section of wood road that's being talked about upper Wood Road improvements that was talked about in the timing component of this base village, you know, approval process requires that to be completed. Craig, if I'm wrong, by November of 2018 and that phasing as well to do that. So, you know, there's a potential that that construction management plan for those other rats would be obviously coming down much lower on Wood Road with that. But there will be that potential on the lower Wood Road during the construction of those phasers. road during that construction of those phases. So, would there be a continued easement for the Tom Blake trail through that area? Yeah, we, that was all discussed originally during this process and there were specific easements that were part of the plat that were included in this including all of that. So, including what we were talking about, on Crestwood Wise here, that trail across from Fannie Hill, also a trail easement that goes across this little finger at the bottom to Ołowski access into that. I wonder if, let me just make an observational statement. There are people sitting up here on town council that we're not familiar with what was approved way back younger. I do remember it and I pulled it out of my repertoire of I don't know how many thousand volumes of stuff and looked at it. Would that help everyone to kind of know where the access was on wood run and how the parking was going to happen and what these things kind of look like even though they're going to change in terms of exterior or yes, no, or for me, you know the yellow side on the plat map and Seeing the footprint would help for me. I mean But again, this is just a phasing. This is only a phasing question so I know we have a lot more to come so I'm very familiar with the area. I think we all are. The old back of the ski school building. The old building. Well, yeah, I mean, I think as Don said, it would be great to... It would be great if we had some sort of lay of the land there. But it sounds like it's gonna change and it's coming I think it's only the exterior is changing not the lay of the land, right? Yeah, the grade is still there the you know Parking garage access and all of those kinds of things We have a lot of you playing pictures and all that kind of stuff Well just a building envelope is basically what I'm referring to, that footprint, you know. What's the relevance to what we have in front of us? For me, I don't, there's questions coming about. The Tom Blake trail and the ski back trail and... Yeah, but all of that isn't relevant to what is in front of us. Oh, right now, it's a phasing question. If it's not going to be helpful, then let's not do it. I mean, I'm happy to take a look at it when it comes forward and deal with the phasing at this point. when it comes forward and deal with the phasing at this point? And I am as well. I mean, again this is a phasing question. I'm aware of that. But the only thing that is an issue, as Robert said, that the owners of people like the Crestwood would like to know in advance, I don't think they know what they're facing. What they're going to encounter in the next couple of years. Well, here the challenge is it's already been approved. It's really not a change. No, and I understand that. And I understand that. And I understand that. But it's still an eye opener for these people. OK? And it's not like read the small print here. It's going to be a reality. OK. That would be a component that we'd address as part of the construction management plan component, also to Robert's point on this map that was prepared for the disclosure, et cetera, or it does say, if I for it, this was actually also mailed to all questwood owners as required by town code as well. I have a question here. As well as public posting from a list of the nice see Robert and then I may suggest Take a break, but I'm I probably need I probably me would be helped by some legal counsel here in a minute Recognizing that this is a phasing issue, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, in 2011, when staff voted against allowing them to build Fannie Hill cabins earlier than originally anticipated, it was also about having two construction sites going on simultaneously. And that's one of our concerns as well. I mean, we've dealt with, as a lot of people have dealt with, the enclave, and others, the construction void or lack thereof construction at base village. Well, we're going to open up another construction site in the middle of all that as well. We were concerned about that. I just wanted to add that point. Thank you, Robert. Is there any other questions from Council? Jim, did you have a comment? No, I was just going to mention that the two construction site was not an issue. We brought it up on our current report. They're obviously going to have to have construction stage and on the site to get a constructed excavation, to get the ground parking garage in and so forth. And regarding this notice, I mean, it is highlighted. Danielle Cabin's site is noted and the legal description is noted for it. The other surrounding condition adjacent properties are noted correctly on the map. So it provides the legal notice for the people. And just as a matter of information, John was right that the 2014 applications were too separate. I stand alone applications and staff, and maybe it staff's fault for how it proceeded, but we actually recommended that they combine their efforts to submit one major PUD in a month, and we even suggested that they combine phase 1, B, and phase 2, B into 1 phase. And that's what they did with the slightest major PUD in the month. Okay. Can I ask a question? Yeah. So in the staff recommendations, the first one on page 12 or page 16, if you're on the I legislate, it says that you would recommend within 90 days that they have re-plat and associated agreements submitted. What can you explain what that entails exactly? Well, under the final PD provisions, there is a provision that can occur within 90 days. Other documents that need to be submitted with final PD that they be submitted at least within 90 days, such as a- But what kind of documents? It's not specific. It's moot as to what kind of documents we're assuming final PD guide or perhaps agreements. Those planning commission did not carry that forward. They thought it could be provided with their subsequent PUD amendment as well. There's a typical subdivision improvements agreement that needs to happen. Usually a development agreement, finalized plot, et cetera. Those are the kinds of components that go along with that. If there was an affordable housing agreement, it would be one that would be provided at that period of time to, I don't know, John, what else is typical? That's if we were amending the piece. I mean, we're only having phasing here. These agreements are deep for the subsequent application that they're representing is coming. And even if they don't submit a subsequent application, it would be due prior to issuance of permits. We make certain that occurred by following the conditions and the current ordinance. Okay. I'm going to suggest we take the audience take a break and I would like to put forth. I would like to have a conference with the attorney. So I'm going to move to go into executive session. Tom Council will now meet an executive dislike, require four votes. Tom Council will now meet an executive session pursuant to CRS 2464024. It's known Stomach Village Municipal Code Section 245c to specifically discuss one item. Conference us with an attorney for the purposes of receiving legal advice on a specific legal question pursuant to CRS 2464024c and Stomach Village Municipal Code 245c2. Provided there is an affirmative vote of two thirds of the quorum present at this meeting to hold an executive session. And for the sole purpose of considering item A above, which is a conference with the attorney, provided further that no adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, regulation, formal action shall occur at this executive session. So I have made the motion. Do I have second? Second. Do I have further discussion? All in support, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Oppose? Same sign. OK, about a 20 minute. Take a break. OK, push on your hand. Okay. Okay. Okay. I will now continue a regular meeting. And I think there are a few more questions that seem to come forth out of legal council review and discussion that need to be asked in public. So I think Bob, you had wanted to refer to page 110, the original condition, which which was conditioned on phase 2b. And phase 2b essentially included lot 2 plus the aqua center. And phase 1b which was 678 building 678 and It would it would seem to me that one way we could I Guess move this forward and still move and still move everything else or attempt to move everything else forward in base village. That we've been talking about moving is to in the ordinance, add lot three to the requirements of building permit and certificate of occupancy. So I'm throwing that out there. Don, you want to take it or I have some thoughts on. Don, you want to take it or I have some thoughts on. About my question in your clarification is whether or not construction still could commence, but we couldn't obtain a certificate of occupancy until lots two and three received the TCO, which is what the current language says and referenced the lot too. Yeah, so I'm clear. In order to get a building permit for Fannie Hill townhomes, they would have to be permits issued for 6, 7, 8, 4, 8, B and 5. Then in order to get a CO for Fannie Hill, they would have to be a CO for 4, 8, B and 5. Is that, did I hear you right now? I think what's requested in here is a TCO for that. Yeah, come on in to me. I'm sorry, that's just a slip of my tongue to do that. So I think I'm going to go that. So, you know, I had to go ahead. I think that I think that's a reasonable compromise that at least gets, at least gets us going sort of within the time frames we're trying to get to. It doesn't get construction started on the podium, which is what I would really like to do. I thought I turned it off, but I guess I did. like to do. I would have. Sorry. I thought I turned it off. I guess I did. OK. Go ahead. It gets construction. It doesn't get construction started on the podium, which is I guess what my goal was. But it's certainly a start. And it's certainly, I guess it would certainly indicate we're moving further forward than we currently seem to be. How do the rest of you feel about that? Well, I want to hear Don's response. Oh, that's fine. I'd love to hear Russ a council comments. Well the question for me is going to throw it right back at you. I terrestri- We we think that You know commencement as it's written today commencement of the YMI hotel on and You know as a branded hotel gets construction going on in the podium. As part of this as it's written today, that's going to be the biggest component. That seems to be the component that everybody wants happening in there. Quite frankly, that building is going to be the longest for reconstruction time frame to make something happen into that. So I would feel much more comfortable if it was left to where it was in reference to the limelight hotel, a branded limelight hotel being commenced construction. Before we can get a building permit. I'm fine with tying the certificate of occupancy for Fannie Hill to only after that's getting a temporary certificate of occupancy. So the notion of trying to tie project together, it seems a little complicated to me with trying to tie it to related. It's given the fact that I have you done. My understanding is you're in negotiations with related to purchase lot too. Just lot too. Lot too, okay. Okay, well I hear what you're saying but I can't get there. Okay, I'm just trying to, I mean I'm trying to help to move, you know, at all instead of trying to do things in a piecemeal basis. The challenge that I have done is the status of where these agreements are. And there's a way, I understand we can do something about dates of approval of this ordinance and the second reading and all that kind of stuff to buy some time to figure out where we are with the agreements. And I think it's extremely important for us as council to realize this is not the architecture of renting This is just basically a phasing change. A phasing change. So I'll see if there's any other questions from council members to you or comments from the public and then we're gonna move into just, I'll need to find out if I've got a motion on the table for approval of the first reading. Which would be fine. I might offer a few other things if you wouldn't mind. I did get confirmation just to let you know our current outside date and our purchase in the sale agreement is January 31st. Council doesn't meet until after that. So that's when housekeeping items specifically if this was not approved tonight. Our closing potentially date that's outlined in that agreement doesn't happen until all of those other agreements are finalized To satisfaction so all the agreements that you know at this point were only party to the plaza agreement We've had those conversations we keep moving forward on it Just to let you know we had requested that the development agreement try to move forward faster than the other ones because it also has The potential to have some impact on the rule 106 hearing. But I think staff has required requested that everything go at the same time. I understand the reasons for that and so forth. And I just go back to the base village process that was going through and Mark, your concerns and I think Bob especially too on what's going on with the town's concerns over building six. And we've got the same concerns not only on that, but on the rest of this thing. I mean, we're looking at this yet is, we're not looking at what building six might cost or whatever kind of thing, but the commitment on our part to get forward is over a hundred million dollars that will commit and spend in this community if we move forward with this. As Mike had mentioned, our ownership is concerned that we've seen almost 20% price increase in 2014 when we are looking at this. We aren't seeing average rates in this town going up that high to cover that from a hotel standpoint or occupancy. Some are occupancyers are getting better, but not near where we think we'll be in Asman to do that. And one of the reasons why I think we're looking for solving this one issue and getting over is to somewhat as a message that we think we can move forward from the town's perspective as well. Before we're going to be able to close, we're going to need to commit to our design consultants to start this process to even have 2017 to move forward. So we're looking at a burn on a design fees even before we close if we make this commitment. And our owners are hesitant to make a commitment to that without seeing forward progress continuing to go on checking these lists off. But we're about to enter into something that potentially burn about $200,000 a month on design for something. If we continue to move forward on this, but I think we're trying to clear hurdles one at a time. And that's when I'm asking to be able to get this hurdle completed tonight. We've all been here and we know how long it takes to get through different components of this. We know that the agreements to be negotiated in the next 60, almost 60 days, from 1221,'re already 30 days through that. It's going to take time to get through these other things. All I'm asking is we'd really like to check one of these items off the list. Non firstly I'd like to thank you for that transparency and date. I know I've had to do on that, but I do appreciate getting that date back because that was critical in terms of some thought processes that I had and other members of council I'm sure had. So any other questions for Don? Do I have a motion for approval? I'll move to approve ordinance to series 2016 on the first reading. I think it's been made clear by the ski company that the Fannie Hill townhomes are the economic engine for building the line light. We're not seeing a lot of hotel construction in the ski resort business. I think it's important that we move this hotel forward. I'm comfortable moving it forward based on this first reading and the phasing schedule with a little note or the townhomes. I have a motion on the table. Do I have a second? I'll give a second on the first reading, edition 4 approval. I'll see if there's some discussion. I'm going to keep trying, Don. Don, you've laid out these five items that consider to be hurdles. And as we've been trying to express, there's a certain lack of commitment that we feel we haven't seen. I know I hear you and I appreciate the fact that you continue to express that you are committed and your organization is committed. I would, I guess I would like to suggest that this Fannie Hill phasing amendment be one of the last things, one of the last hurdles to overcome rather than one of the first hurdles to overcome. We know that the development agreements and the other agreements attached to the PUD are due by the middle of March, March 18th, I think, is the final date. So I guess I would propose to my fellow council that if in fact we approve a first reading that the second reading be delayed until the meeting, the second meeting that we have in March, which falls around, must fall around the 18th or sometime just thereafter. And that would give you, yeah, in theory that would provide the ski company with the approval that we're looking for and on the other hand, it would provide the town and the council with some of the confidence from the approval from the agreements and the finalization of the the major PUD amendment You're not the same time. I guess my response to that is I'm not sure without having at least a final approval on here is what that signal from to our ownership and to our senior management team that we would go at risk and start working on design drawings yet. So, the answer to the question is I'm not sure that that wouldn't jeopardize our ability to potentially start in the spring of 17 as well. I have a, here's, obviously I was pushing you on why do we have to do this tonight? Why can't we wait? The hardest part is not knowing exactly where we are on these agreements. As you know, we approved it with a condition that the staff would negotiate the 10 agreements. And then I heard from Mr. Maseo that we should be pretty close by the 7th of March or they will be turned around by the 7th with town coming back with their comments. Craig, I may be wrong, you may want to correct. What is, you got to have a, I know you got a timeline chart We are waiting for staff to turn the comments back to us and I believe Clint had said we'll receive those by Friday Okay, and I said that we would hope to wrap those agreements up by the end of February in terms of I'm sure There will be a couple back and forth and a couple of meetings on specific agreements parking management plan It's not that there's an issue. It's just we know there's comments, and it's best to just kind of sit in a room and just work through those. And so I know that we're committed to getting through this as quickly as possible. We don't want to wait until the outside date of March 18th. And so I know that we're committed to trying and getting everything wrapped up as quickly as possible. I think we all want that certainty sooner rather than later. And this is just one step in that process. And we just as a comment, we are pushing, and I've been calling Craig to try to accelerate those agreements to get them finalized sooner than later, again, from a certainty perspective, and our perspective. So we've been taking a positive or proactive approach with related and obviously some of those agreements have some impact on us down the road. So in pursuant to our agreement, they're sharing with us the agreements as they're being reviewed with town staff. So we have two meetings in March. The seventh and, 21st. 17th and the 22nd. 21st. 21st. We don't know exactly where we are or how much progress can be made over the next five weeks, if you will. What I would we could do is look at the meeting on the 7th for second reading to know what the directional signal is plus mine up down. And that would still provide you with the dates that you have mentioned. I don't think there's a lot of opposition up here, Don. We're just trying to work with Scoot-Cota, know a little bit more. And... Understood. I know you're in a tough place, too. Yeah, I mean, for us to commit to move forward, I mean, every continued delay, and I'm'm sorry to go to the dissertation that this building should already be open, but it should. From our perspective and in looking at this and to look at that, we need some kind of help in heading in the right direction here for us to start spending money at risk. So here goes. If we approve this on first reading, isn't that a directional signal right there? It's a partial directional signal. I mean, they're still a signal. Pretty damn close. If I could throw an idea out and I'm going to look to John and see if this would work, but I think I might hit shares needs and maybe the needs of SkiCo. But if a fifth condition was added, and I don't have the words exactly what they would be, but along the lines of all the remaining 10 agreements identified in the PUD ordinance for base village are executed as required by the, you know, and required timeline. As a condition of approval, that way we don't have to worry about the timing of it. It's March 7th or March 21st, but if we said, if the concern is we want to make sure that those agreements are in fact executed and completed, made that condition number five in this ordinance. Requiring that that to happen so that if the conditions are if the if the all 10 agreements are agreed to then this ordinance number two you know it's a can would be you know effectively approved at that point and that way you wouldn't have to you could approve it that way for the first and second reading because you could consider to approve it that way with the first and second reading you could have that protection without having to wait until the 21st. So you could basically do the reading, second reading of the ordinance. ASAP. ASAP. And then we're still reliant on those. I mean, I don't know. I'm looking to make sure I'm not breaking any laws and get thrown in on land use jail and saying, but it'd be an idea to be all to consider. That's a very good suggestion. What about the agreement or whatever the legal terminology is for the garage? Kind of a minimization. Kind of a minimization. kind of many musicians kind of many musicians now that still hangs out and if that if that Maybe this is a question directed to you don't know we can't close on what till that's completed Yeah, I realize that and get title and and if and if if whatever reason you can't get it negotiated to get it completed You know You still got, there's no concern between related and ourselves, the question about the condominium. Yeah. Theization of the garage rest with town review and approval of those documents. Okay. Okay. So you've, the two parties have reached agreement on it it's just it's just now getting it through the town. Just getting it through process and getting it proved and recorded so that tight-on insurance can be issued for the property and the conveyance of the mountain-clad parking stalls. Okay okay Tom do you have anything? No, I don't. All my questions have been answered. You can join on that. Yes. Okay. Okay. We have a motion on the table. We also have a second to that motion. Before we take a vote, we'll go through the detail to make sure we've incorporated the language and final questions that may come forth. Lissa, did you have any questions? No, I just, I was questioning whether we were going through it because I had a question. Yes, we're going through it in detail now. All right. Okay. Page one. All the way around this. Page 106. Page 107. Page 108. I had a question. I had a question on page 107. Line 81. Line 81, okay. Move forth. I guess I don't understand how this enhances the original PUD. So somebody who'd explained that to me, I'd appreciate it. I had an explanation of it in our staff report, but now I gotta go find it because I don't remember. If you can find the page, I thought I read that in the reading. I think, one page 111. I think staff mentioned that the proposed amendment seems inconsistent with previous applicant representations and approvals, but maybe considered an enhancement if the goal is to complete both Billing 5 limelight hotel and base fillers lot 2 and the Fannie have Kevin's project. The Fannie have Kevin's project that has some financial benefit to the town as well. And staff's previous concern with the phase change was that, you know, we get building seven and eight finished off first because that's the front door image to the base village project. And we weren't objecting to a combined phase to approach as long as all the buildings get done at the same time 2018. We'll also result in the end as additional affordable housing. Although this is not part of that because this is a face notch. No, this is just phasing. We thought the applicant has done, um, maybe publicly mention that we thought the applicant has done diligent or began and processed diligent efforts with the base village applicant as far as getting the previous major POD in the month going and processed through the town. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm looking at page 108. I had a at page 108. I had a question. Yep. What line? Well, it's really about number two. So starting at 118 in the staff report, you had put the language of the 90 days. Does that not need to go in here? We had that presented as a draft condition and the planning commissions resolution planning commission didn't seem to think that was such an important deal. I mean if they don't submit their PUDM a month then we'd have to have them process it by the time they submit a billing permit whether that be 90 days or a year out and with the if they submit it with the PUDM a month we can process it with that application or apply the same condition with that amendment review as well. The discussion of the Planning Commission from our perspective was again I am committed to design the redesign of this and we didn't think we'd have a redesign Within 90 days of the approval of this document to be able to bring forward a comprehensive beauty application For the revisions of Fannie Hill so planning commission removed the 90 days So that we had enough time to adequately redesign the project Thank you. Continue on page 108. And line 124, the language of which could also be submitted versus it will be submitted. Can you help me there? Well, they can either submit the updated restricted housing agreement, priority issuance of brealing permits or submit it with their suggested PUDM on what we can review it at that time. We was able to find what changing could to shall. would at that time. We was they find we're changing could to shall. Shall be submitted with a subsequent PUD amendment. Well, that that was that was supposed to be worded as an option. Yeah. Because we don't know if that's going to be the case or not. Are you comfortable with the word shall? We are. If this town is. Well, the first sentence says the applicant shall demonstrate being an updated restricted housing agreement. And they need to provide that nonetheless. Oh, so it's almost the point. You got to do it anyway. You got to do it anyway. You know, you could just say which could also, it should say to be submitted with a subject on PUDM. I prefer that language. So if you don't, it's hard to go with the plan. The language is in here allows them to rebuild the plan as is or to modify the plan. So they shall demonstrate it through a restricted housing agreement. So the agreement is to come no matter what, and they get to decide what plan they'll want to submit. What your preference are doing? I think the way that it's going to give some latitude as well as us. Okay. Now, Clant proposed number five. And are you comfortable with that language? I would like to hear it again. Okay, just in a rear out, I mean right now you've got a motion on the floor approving it without- Right. But the fifth condition that we discussed would be along the lines of that the items, I don't have in front of you, but items A through K identified in the ordinance approving the base village PUD be completed and executed as required by that ordinance and that's basically by March 18th and I can come up with something fancier for second reading but okay so this would be okay. We'll have to go back and amend the motion. Maybe the concept, but the concept would be that if your concern is you want to make sure those agreements are in fact done. Done. Okay. Mission is good. Done. Are you comfortable with that? If you are. Yeah, if they are really. No, I understand. I wanted to make sure that the intertwining of the 2PUD and 2PUDs, separate and distinct, was of any concern to you. I think you're concerned to that occur a long, long time ago. Yeah. We're fine with the language I had. I haven't heard you withdraw it. No. We have an untied of us as yet. No. But if you want to take that position, then I have to take a different position as well. Now, quite frankly, we need to have those things finish for us to continue to move forward on this anyway. Okay, so then we will have to make another motion, but we're gonna come back to that. Okay, moving on down through the agreement, on page 109, any questions? So in order, John, in terms of procedural, we will need to vote on the existing motion and then have a new motion with the changes or good. No, because it's been seconded, you can make a motion to amend now and add condition five and then vote. Would you be willing to? All right. I can make a motion to amend the motion to include the agreements. A through K. A through K, and ordinance 25. Number five. Number five, so that once approved, upon second reading, there'll be retroactively approved. No. You want to make a motion to amend this ordinance to include ordinance five, which shall read condition five. Yes. Condition five. So you're inserting a condition. So you're amending this ordinance now. And you wanted to read. It would be to the condition five would read the requirement to have agreements A through K as identified in ordinance 2015-9 be executed. You want me to repeat that? So moved. If you still moved. And that way the idea is that those agreements are done and that hopefully they would meet the need of the rest of the council. Okay. We have a motion on the table to amend. We have a motion and a second. And now we have amendment to the motion. I'll second that modification. Any further discussion? Any comments from the public? So call a question on the amendment. Oh, are you comfortable with the amendment? I'm comfortable with the amendment. It's the decline discussion, so. Okay. Yes. Okay, all in support of the ordinance. The amendment to the ordinance. Oh, yeah, that's right. The amendment to the motion. Oh, to the ordinance. The ordinance ordinance number two. Say aye. So we're just approving the amendment. Yes. Aye. Aye. Oppose Hi. Hi. Opposed? Same sign? Okay. Now we do have an approval agreement on the ordinance number two with the amendment. All in support of ordinance number two series of 2016. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Opposed. Aye. Opposed. No. Free two passes. Okay. Thank you. And at this point we will continue. Do we have to continue the public hearing? Yes. To our next meeting and it would be the second reading of the ordinance in our next meeting. And the day of that meeting is February 1st at 4 p.m. February 1 at 4 p.m. Okay, the next item on the agenda. Administrative reports. How is it planning, PMO? I'm going to go to the committee. Administrative reports. It's well that's administrative. And this would be Jim. Any comments from the plant? No, there was an opening on the planning commission. once when they can position this was the application that came through Because I wasn't discussed with the workshop like some of the other applications in their resolution you approved earlier this evening We thought we'd put it on the administrative Gender just to just maybe if you wanted a discussion if in fact I mean it is the only application we have now if you wanted to make the appointment or recommend the appointment We could prepare the resolution for the next council meeting and have it ready to go for it So we're looking for direction I guess Yeah, yes, and he's on the snowmass arts advisory board and I'm bastard with him. Oh And I think that he would be a great addition. I think he loves snowmast, loves living here, really wants to be more involved. He has the time. He really, I think, works through things. And I think he'd be a great addition. Yes, credentials are pretty darned. Yes, impressive. On that application, I didn't see if he's a registered voter. It is, it is, yes. Am I not looking at? Is it a seat permanent resident? Yes. The registered vote and snowmess ability is checked, yes. Okay, I'm excuse me, yes. 134, 137. Okay, I think everyone is comfortable. So we'll prepare the resolution and get it back to you for the next council meeting. Get it going. No, we still we still have to do the marketing board. Yes, marketing. Correct. And what was next time? Yes. I remember I told you the date. I don't know the date was that I told you but I know that the next debate the next day we get everybody's mind. Everybody could be here. Correct. Thank you. Okay. Any town council reports and actions? I'm just gonna say I took a tour of the maintenance facility in Bethan and last Thursday and went around with Andy and checked out all the snow melt houses, all the pumping stations and all the boiler rooms and everything. And it was very helpful to know how the operation works up there. Along with the package that Snowmass Village offers to their benefits and everything to the employees. We have some very happy people working for us and we have some long-term people up in that maintenance department have been there a long time and it's very rewarding to see and I'm gonna continue my process, Clint and I set me up with some more in my quest to see how the town operates in full. I just, I guess I have a question which is more, it's a question administrative, but just Clint, they're now our next meeting. Could you give us an update on where we are on the human resource survey that we had talked about during budget? I can give it to you right now because we haven't made a lot of progress in the last two weeks or last two months. So not much further along than when the budget was passed. I mean it is absolutely in our, I know it needs to be done. We're actually meeting earlier this week with an employee committee we have with all our insurance and benefit folks so everybody's up to speed on that and I think it's actually Thursday. So we're taking steps towards the HR goals and whatnot that we're trying to get done, but that actual survey instrument we haven't started working on that detail yet. Okay. Thank you. Rafft abored meeting approval of the Union contract occurred last week. And the second is obviously the big issue on the Grand Avenue bridge and the impact on Rafft ab. There was a suggestion that the amount of money already approved by EOTC may be a little slight of what might be needed. So here we go but I'll make no more comments about that at this point in time. A special meeting of the Public Health Board with Pick and County. We're really struggling now with the notion of access to care. And that is that we have many residents and more and more at the same time who have no access to primary care physicians here in the Pick and County area because Medicaid or Medicare or the Obama plan are not accepting some of our physicians most of them are not accepting any new patients or a particular insurance. So you probably read in the paper about the issue of working with Mountain Family and expanding the POSALT center or what have you to really provide primary care for individuals who live in this neck of the woods. So you'll hear more about that as we continue down the path that trying to solve a pretty significant problem. Tomorrow evening, I'd hope to be able to make it, but I think I want to go to the poster presentation at 3 o'clock tomorrow is it's a brainstorming session with a developer for a CCRC in Mid Valley. I know a lot about the proposed project and proposed developer but it's just brainstorming and seeing what the options are and it's a CCRC continuing care retirement community. Thank you thank you. Yeah it's because I was going to ask you. He's too young to know that word retirement. Did you know what a CCRC was? Yes I did. You're a fit. And the answer is you have to put a dollar in the pot for that alphabet. No, we ought to. I got a meeting tomorrow with the Aspen Nordic Council, so I'll be able to report back on trails, but I think they're doing a phenomenal job. And I'm not sure this is the right time to discuss our email exchange on the Ice Age Discovery Center, but I just want to express my support and I want to make sure that we have a concerted effort to support our Ice Age Discovery Center. And if they are not on track, I think we should help them to get on track because I think it's going to be a really crucial part of the base village and hopefully building six. In that point, if I remember, we have that schedule, and I don't have my in-friend me, but for discussion or presentation March 14th, I believe. So that's how we've got to schedule for them to come and give the results of their feasibility analysis. Great. I have a Northwest Cog meeting next week in Eagle. That's it. Good. Do you know what the agenda is? Item serve? No. They haven't seminar. Okay. I don't think. No, they haven't. They haven't. I don't think. Because I haven't seen it come through. I must say miss it. Okay, anything else to come forward this evening? We have a motion for adjournment. So moved. There's a second. Second. All the supports say aye. Aye. Same sign. We are...